hps works great as long as you can control heat.fluffy airy buds is a result of high heat.dense tight buds are grown in better conditions.my set up doesnt work well with hps due to difficulties removing the heat.if i had the ability to keep my heat under 80 where i grow i would not be going back to pll but i dont so i am trying a new pll cabinet as soon as it is finished.each persons grow is dictated by what they have to work with.right now i am smoking light fluffy buds due to my heat going up to high 80s all the time with a 6 inch vortex and an air cooled hood.if my new design works well i will post it on here.there are many ways to grow dank ass bud and i try to keep an open mind to what is being done by others!
Anybody ran a pl-l and been unhappy and gone back to cfl's
- Thread starter IwannatokeNbone
- Start date
hps works great as long as you can control heat.fluffy airy buds is a result of high heat.dense tight buds are grown in better conditions.my set up doesnt work well with hps due to difficulties removing the heat.if i had the ability to keep my heat under 80 where i grow i would not be going back to pll but i dont so i am trying a new pll cabinet as soon as it is finished.each persons grow is dictated by what they have to work with.right now i am smoking light fluffy buds due to my heat going up to high 80s all the time with a 6 inch vortex and an air cooled hood.if my new design works well i will post it on here.there are many ways to grow dank ass bud and i try to keep an open mind to what is being done by others!
pll and cfl dont penetrate as well as hps but if you keep plants smaller or scrog or lst you can achieve as good or better yields then most people with hps!if you want a commercial grow i dont think it would be worth it to try with pll but most people are more concerned with keeping a steady supply of good bud and either of these will work well.i prefer pll over cfl due to better light penetration and lower temps and the ability to run the ballast outside the grow area and better light spread.i would be using the newer leds but the price is just too high to justify spending that when pll doesnt cost much.
IwannatokeNbone
Member
heat is huge though i agree it can increase it but if u want tight dense sticky nugs add some BLUE light
In my experience too much blue in flower makes for leafier buds, which in my opinion lowers the quality of the bud..you can only trim out so much leaf without mangling the bud...maybe with tons of extra blue light in flower it produces better calyxes, but with all the extra leaf matter mixed in, I think it would be hard to tell. I don't like to smoke or grow excess leaves.
There is no best bulb, everything has it's advantages and disadvantages. It's up to the grower to be open minded enough to try different things and find what works best for them, in their environment...rather then reading a few things and assuming they know what's what without actual experiance. I'd never consider running a single type of lighting in all my cabs..it's not even feasible in any way.
There is no best bulb, everything has it's advantages and disadvantages. It's up to the grower to be open minded enough to try different things and find what works best for them, in their environment...rather then reading a few things and assuming they know what's what without actual experiance. I'd never consider running a single type of lighting in all my cabs..it's not even feasible in any way.
I am running a vertical pll with LED's overhead in my grow. I use cfl's to veg, they are fine for that. If you are not concerned with yields, cfl is fine for flower.
I think vertical is the best option for flowering with pll. when people get to doing that here, I think there will be a renewed interest in pll. They will see real efficiency of light, something the hid has over the flouros for a lot of people.
I think vertical is the best option for flowering with pll. when people get to doing that here, I think there will be a renewed interest in pll. They will see real efficiency of light, something the hid has over the flouros for a lot of people.
do you have a journal on here?would like to see your vertical grow
^^ No sorry, I was using LED only and added a single vertical pll in center of grow. My yields are going to be crap no matter what, with this grow. Not the fault of the light, maybe seed genetics, small pots, low nutes, etc. There is a thread called hi-pod, which is a vertical.
The hi-pod uses too many watts or lights for the size of space used imo, but it is an example. The most efficient vertical, would be the light or lights in center of grow. the hi-pod is lights to the outside, which still works good. You need a good reflector to use them on the outside, which the hi-pod lacked.
The hi-pod uses too many watts or lights for the size of space used imo, but it is an example. The most efficient vertical, would be the light or lights in center of grow. the hi-pod is lights to the outside, which still works good. You need a good reflector to use them on the outside, which the hi-pod lacked.
Tilt
Member
pll lamps are crap don't use them unless you want a consistant supply of weed with nuggets that look like they have been dropped in a bowl of sugar. When well ventilated they are not hot enough either. Who the hell would want a cool running lamp that is almost as efficient as hid in producing lumens. Put in a HID it is the only way to cultivate plants.
The High Pod used flat white paint which reflects approx 93% of the light. But you "need" a good reflector to use PL-L on a perimeter lit grow?
Presumably, this "need" is for 2mm thick mylar or Reflectix, so that the reflection rate can go from 93% to 95-97%? This "need" of 4% greater reflectivity is required, notwithstanding your judgment that the High-pod was ALREADY too bright given its volume?
Sorry. You can't have it both ways here. It's one or the other - but it can't be both.
IMO, the High-Pod was one of the most important designs on ICM. I modified it further in my PiLLar design, expanded the grow chamber volume by 20% and increased the wattage to 440w PL-L. The changes increased harvest from one plant grown in DWC under PL-L to over 8 zips.
But half a pound of weed from one plant under PL-L is not "good enough"?
Tilt
Member
1/2 a lb is very respectable. What is good enough? I try not get caught up in the obsession of grams per watt and squeezing every gram of yeild out of my plants. I am grateful to have enough for me and mine own needs. I try to keep my grow cheap yet safe & efficient. I don't want to invest a whole lot of money into growing.I might as well go back to the dealer. I am willing to invest my time and my brain to becoming a better caretaker for my plants. I designed a grow that provides for me at the low end and whatever I get over that is gravy.
Yea, you heard me right, it needed a good v reflector as the wall behind it blocked some of the light from coming out, bouncing back and forth between wall and light. It ran ok tho, could have been better. He did not have space for all that in his case, and the circular wall reflected pretty good, a flat one would not do as well.
4 lights would have been enough lumens for the space, diminishing returns after that. I got to have both ways hehe
4 lights would have been enough lumens for the space, diminishing returns after that. I got to have both ways hehe
thestruggle
Member
Quick question that seemed somewhat related to the discussion going on in this thread- can a ballast (Advance ICN-2S54) designed to run 2 55w PL-L or T5/HO run 2 24W PL-Ls instead? Could it run 4 24W PL-Ls?
I run HPS, MH, t5, t10, cfl. This run is under a 1k HPS, and I will probably will switch bulb to MH for the last 2 weeks. With that said, I have to tell You, The HPS does fine on its own. It has greater lumens that penetrate deep into the canopy. The buds produced on many strains are rock hard,and the highs quite often will give you green out on a bong hit. Look to the hundreds of pictures in my albums for your proof. I have been getting high since the late 60s, and growing since 1972. We didnt have MH or HPS back then. Guys were growing sativas under cool white floresents in the garage.
DP
Strapped
Member
I would like to see a study that supports claims that buds grown under hps are of lesser quality compared to PLLs or MH. The only thing I have ever seen to support that claim is that MH (and CMH for that matter) produce a small quantity of UVB light, which in turn leads to THC production. More THC doesn't always mean more potency however, and almost all UVB light is filtered out by glass if you cool tube. I've never heard anything about blue spectrum making more potent buds. If potency is what you want I'd say it has to come from genetics.
There is no such study. There are some anecdotal stories of "better smoke" from CMH lamps - but these don't amount to much. The improved growth under CMH, especially in vegetative stage, is well supported. If there was a 1000W CMH bulb? I doubt that HPS would be used as much as it is. But they don't make a 1000W CMH (nor a 600w, either). So that's that.
Your HPS is just fine. The OP is making nonsensical declarations that are mostly bold and unsubstantiated claims. It's ICM. This happens from time to time on every forum on the site. What else is new?
So What Your saying is, MH and Sodium still kick ass and put out the top quality Colas?
S
staff11
And there have also been people stating they dont like the vegetation growth in flower with CMH. i.e. to much leaf to bud ratio.
All three are better for overall yield then low intensity lighting though. Just the way it is folks. Not that you can't grow good quality buds from them.
You aren't missing anything growing under just pure HPS in flower, they work just fine. If anything you want to worry more about color spectrum in the veg phase....
I just don't understand how people that have never grown with HPS can make blanket statements about it. There is a reason why the majority of huge grow ops use them. Efficiency for one, and they are rated for twice the lifespan of MH. People used MH back in the day because it came out before HPS was available.
Here is an interesting article about UV-B, now I do see he says that MH produce a bit more resin, but it's not from UV-B. Most of the glass used to make the bulbs filter it out. Not to mention is it really worth the risks involving cancer? UV light isn't all that good for humans.....
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/2696.html
All three are better for overall yield then low intensity lighting though. Just the way it is folks. Not that you can't grow good quality buds from them.
You aren't missing anything growing under just pure HPS in flower, they work just fine. If anything you want to worry more about color spectrum in the veg phase....
I just don't understand how people that have never grown with HPS can make blanket statements about it. There is a reason why the majority of huge grow ops use them. Efficiency for one, and they are rated for twice the lifespan of MH. People used MH back in the day because it came out before HPS was available.
Heat true. But the blue spectrum about dense nugs is just simply false. I have grown under Floros, CFL's, HPS.... Nothing came close to the density of the HPS buds...nothing. The Floros and CFL's aren't even close. And the smoke was fine. I have run 6500k T-8 floros with the HPS without increase yield or potency as side lighting. It simply was not worth the extra power cost to run them.
Here is an interesting article about UV-B, now I do see he says that MH produce a bit more resin, but it's not from UV-B. Most of the glass used to make the bulbs filter it out. Not to mention is it really worth the risks involving cancer? UV light isn't all that good for humans.....
http://www.cannabisculture.com/v2/articles/2696.html
I don't take issue with any of these observations.
I do, however, take issue with lumping PL-L lamps into the same camp as T5s, T8s and CFLs (if that is what you have done -- and it is not clear from your post that you have done so).
PL-Ls put out twice the light intensity of the brightest T5HO in the same footprint (at under half the cost) and vastly exceed the penetrating power of any CFL bulb.
If you work around 55w PL-L lamps without eye protection? You are going to seriously damage your eyes. These lamps are not stand-ins for bathroom mirror lights.
The extra light intensity thrown off by PL-Ls matters. It greatly aids in the penetrating power of the light thrown off by a 55w PL-L lamp, while the cooler temperature allows the lamps to be brought very close to the plants, squeezing the most out of the lumen output of the lamp. That is why a lot of us who use PL-Ls put our 55w lamps in cool tubes (the socket/base is the hottest part of the lamp).
All by way of saying, PL-L lights also grow dense, rock hard nugs - not air bud. If you have not tried growing with them, it is inappropiate to assume that they are the same as "flouros and CFLs". They are not.
S
staff11
No where in my post did I mention PL-L's and I do realize that is what this thread is about. I just take issue with people assuming what HPS or any high intensity lighting can and cannot do without actually using it.
And correct I have used t-8's and CFL's. They will do fine if it is all you have and for micro growers obviously it's much easier to deal with heat issues. You won't get the density of HID lamps though.
